Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Movement Edit feedback

Before:

Other sites dedicated to men's rights issues are the Fathers Rights Foundation, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), and subreddits /r/MensRights and /r/TheRedPill.[35][36][37] Men's rights activists often use the red pill and blue pill metaphor from a scene in The Matrix to identify each other online and in reference to the moment they came to believe that men are oppressed.[32][34][35]

After:

Other sites dedicated to men's rights issues are the Fathers Rights Foundation, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), and subreddits /r/MensRights and allegedly /r/TheRedPill.[35][36][37] Men's rights activists often use the red pill and blue pill metaphor from a scene in The Matrix to identify each other online and in reference to the moment they came to believe that men are oppressed.[32][34][35]

Source to be added:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-red-pill-reddit-2013-8

Quote from Source to be listed:

For a group of socially-aware individuals disappointed in the current state of gender relations, there's not much activism, so to speak. By Morpheus's own admission, Red Pill doesn't do much offline.

"We’re definitely a little different from the men’s rights movement in the sense that we don’t seek to 'fix' society or our government," he said. "In fact, a lot of us feel that things are beyond fixing. Sure it’d be nice if reproductive rights were equal between women and men, but nobody’s holding their breath about it. A majority of our goals are personal and interpersonal improvement. Not really something to write your congressperson for." Flamous7 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

We should not use "allegedly" per WP:ALLEGED. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

Edit:

Other sites dedicated to men's rights issues are the Fathers Rights Foundation, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), and subreddit /r/MensRights. Men's rights activists often use the red pill and blue pill metaphor from a scene in The Matrix to identify each other online and in reference to the moment they came to believe that men are oppressed.[32][34][35]Critics argue that r/TheRedpill is a subreddit dedicated to men's rights based on their use of the metaphor. However others from within the subreddit, argue they are different and and focus on personal and interpersonal improvement.

Flamous7 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I would strike the "argue they are different" bit, and just keep it to "However, others from within the subreddit say that they have more of a focus on personal and interpersonal development". The source does seem to back this up though. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback once again. Would it be more accurate to change " argue they are different" to "argue they are a little different from the men’s rights movement" to be more accurate and easy to find?

If not:

Critics say that r/TheRedpill is a subreddit dedicated to men's rights based on their use of the metaphor. However others from within the subreddit, say they focus on personal and interpersonal improvement. Some critics, outside the subreddit, say the red pill doesn't really care for the men’s rights movement

Source 2:

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/21/12906510/mens-lib-reddit-mens-rights-activism-pro-feminist

Quoted:

The taxonomy wasn't quite right. MRAs may or may not be people who also like the "red pill." But the red pill doesn't really care for the men’s rights movement. The red pill is about embracing the alpha-dog mentality, treating women like children — whereas the men’s rights movement actually wants to talk about men's issues. And to the extent that they talk about women, women are the problem: not something to be manipulated, but rather something to be opposed because they're the ones who are being manipulative.

Flamous7 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't use the word "argue" at all. The second option seesm ok, except that in the last sentence "red pill" should be "r/TheRedpill". — InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Prison Addition/Edit

After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."

Any feedback is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamous7 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

For inclusion in this article, citations need to directly apply to the Men's Rights Movement to avoid WP:SYNTH. Otherwise, stats like these should go in the Incarceration in the United States article. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Good thing I asked. Would it be proper to update Incarceration in the United States (if it needs to be I haven't checked it) and simply add a source to it like the other sections where a main article is linked? Flamous7 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You might want to attribute the stat to Sonja Starr rather than flatly stating it outright, but it is certainly within the scope of that article. It looks like the study is already referenced there by a Huffington Post article but it could potentially be expanded. Maybe you would want to raise it on that article's talk page. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Admin keeps undoing valid changes - Bbb23

Bbb23

While significantly lower than 40-50%, the FBI study found that the percentage of confirmed false rape allegations to be higher than all other crimes and four times higher than the average for all other crimes.

Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

Quote: The Crime Index is composed of violent and property crime categories, and in 1996, 12 percent of the Index offenses reported to law enforcement were violent crimes and 88 percent, prop- erty crimes. Larceny-theft was the offense with the highest volume, while murder accounted for the fewest offenses.

There have not been any sources to dispute said information.

Bbb23 as well as EvergreenFir keeps undoing said additions. Need some feedback. Flamous7 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The problems I see with this are (1) it's WP:UNDUE weight given to one source, (2) it's a comparison to all other Index Crimes which is not a meaningful comparison because false accusations of homicide or arson or other non-interpersonal would be theoretically lower, (3) it's not found in other annual reports other than 1995 and 1997 (see 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002...), and (4) it's WP:COATRACK/WP:SYNTH as you're taking material from one source and tying it to a topic not mentioned by that source. Thus, it seems to be cherry picking a statistic which sources do not directly relate to the topic of the article.

Moreover, though unrelated to inclusion criteria on Wikipedia, we have issues of how these crimes are reported to UCR. It's important to consider why these numbers are not reported by other reliable sources like textbooks. The legacy definition of rape (used prior to 2013 in UCR reports) is very specific and we know that there's a history of law enforcement determining an accusation is baseless using what we now consider unimportant information such as alcohol consumption, clothing, saying "no", etc. (see shield laws for more on this). In other words, the data are suspect anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

1. 1996 is the only index that addresses reports false accusations as a crime. Because other indexes don't catalog false accusations as a crime, said indexes can't be used in comparison to disprove the findings.
2. These are statistics. Academic theories may be plausible, however user ones are not.
3. The statistic is addressing false accusation, a sub title within Men's Rights wiki; it is addressing and in relation to that title.
4. If the contribution " Most men's rights activists in the United States are white, middle-class, heterosexual men" can be stated as fact and stay based solely on a scholar's words with no studies to prove it in the last decade or two, surely this should be allowed to stay given that there is no data/statistic or scholar's words to counter it or disprove it. If FBI statistics / data are "suspect," surely a scholar's words and website sources with no statistic are suspect as well.

Flamous7 (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Incorrect. 1995 and 1997 include the info as well. But Those are reports. The index crimes is a label given to a set of crimes, and comparing the baseless/unfounded rate of one of the eight to the rest is rather meaningless (see False_accusation_of_rape#FBI_statistics)
2. These are indeed statistics. I'm not sure what your point here is.
3. Even if it is a subtitle, you cannot bring any info related to that subtitle into the article per WP:SYNTH.
4. WP:OTHERSTUFF. I assume you're referring to Kimmel's work? Regardless, I'm sure Kimmel's data have issues too. My comment about the UCR data was more of a pedantic note than anything.

The main issue here appears to be WP:SYNTH. You cannot bring information into the article to synthesize your own conclusions or illustrate ideas unless reliable sources also bring that same information up and you provide that source. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The linked 96 report is referenced in ref 184 in that same section. Synth concerns seem unfounded. Arkon (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It would have been nice if that was referenced then... if we're gonna use that state, attribute it to the source. "NCFM notes that ..." EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

So am I good to go if I make those changes? P.S I appreciate you coming in here EvergreenFir to discuss the issue. I have no negative feelings towards you and you have been very helpful. Flamous7 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I added a version I think works for my concerns using your edits earlier today but based on Arkon's point above. See these edits and let me know what you think. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

When the Laws are written to control the sample data so that the facts are not allowed to be assembled for the report cited data ceases to be persuasive. When the laws cease to be sexist and the samples are valid then the discussion will be worth having. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Slayor (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Men's rights movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020163216/https://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Humanities%20and%20Social%20Science/JIGS/JIGSV4N2_039.pdf to http://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Humanities%20and%20Social%20Science/JIGS/JIGSV4N2_039.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020163216/https://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Humanities%20and%20Social%20Science/JIGS/JIGSV4N2_039.pdf to http://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Humanities%20and%20Social%20Science/JIGS/JIGSV4N2_039.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Reproductive Rights in the Men's Rights article.

What it describes has nothing to do with reproductive rights. The right to reproduce is anathema to the right to get an abortion or disavow oneself of responsibility for a person created through reproduction. Reproductive Rights were guaranteed for women in the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to require women to sign labor contracts which terminated their employment if they got pregnant. Reproductive Rights for a male would mean guaranteeing his pursuit of parenthood is not denied by policies or laws which coerce him through the denial of employment, etc.

The right to an abortion is not a reproductive right, it is a right to not be reproductive. People should learn to communicate accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Slayor (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur that the section needs to be changed, but the case mentioned is definitely relevant. Academically speaking, it is better to leave the case there so that researchers and academics debating the topic are not blindsided when someone brings up this case.

Ice fly editor (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for lead change

Request for lead to remove 2nd and 3rd paragraphs or to include some evidence for/in praise of the mrm. (I would make the edit myself but, due to the issue of bias, this page being under discretionary sanctions, and having trolled content, I think the change should be discussed first)

The second and third lead paragraph doesn't need to be included in the introductory text. Wikipedia states that the lead should be reserved for providing scope to the article. The third paragraph is also just redundant, because the controversy is acknowledged in the second. Having two paragraphs on controversy is superfluous.(<-- Ironic redundancy) The women's right's lead has nothing considering it's controversy and limits the addressal of controversy to three sentences throughout the entire article. The controversy would be better suited as it's own section if it should be kept. If Wikipedia is to have evidence in the introduction that supports the dismissal/denouncing of men's rights, it should also have evidence in that introduction that attributes some merit to the movement to prevent the reader from getting a bias before fully understanding the men's rights movement.

I understand the delicacy of the situation here. I hope to minimize bias. Users look to the leads of articles in a sort of encyclopedic manner. The introduction should maintain scope while being concise and short as possible. If the controversy is addressed then counter points should be addressed and the lead losses the precision. That's why I suggesting the removal from the introduction. I am open to hear what arguments there are to not doing so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The second sentence in the lede also should be deleted. Its demonstrably false to claim that the MRM was launched out of the feminist men's liberation movement in the 1970s, and to claim further down in the article that any earlier men's rights activities must be classed as "precursor movements" without connection to anything before or later. A new book published about the history of the MRM (A Brief History of The Men’s Rights Movement: From 1856 to the present) shows just how ludicrous that claim in the lede is. 118.208.10.180 (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. The statements in the lead are supported by the body of the article. The book you site at the end is from a dubious publisher (Red Pill Press). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Too Much Anti-Male Bias in Article

Every single male issue noted in this article is countered with feminist-source argument attempting to discredit and downplay both: male issues and statistics supporting male arguments. On the other hand, issues cited in highly biased wiki article Feminism do not contain men's rights counter-argument to feminist issues. The entire Men's_rights_movement article needs to be reworked. Feminist downplaying of men's issues should be removed from paragraphs and placed in a separate section entitled "Contrary Opinions" at the end of the article.

Your statement "every single male issue noted in this article is countered with feminist-source argument attempting to discredit and downplay both" is objectively false.

Section 2.1 includes criticism of the idea of legal requirement for some of its consequences, but it is neither discrediting nor downplaying the issue. Section 2.2 does not contain contain any contrary opinion. Section 2.4 does not contain any contrary opinion. Section 2.5 does not contain any contrary opinion. This is when I stopped checking your statement.

If you want to argue for change in the article, please do so with reasoning that is not objectively false.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course you ignored Section 1 and stopped at 2.5, because 2.6 has exactly what s/he's talking about. Lets talk semantics and not address the real issue with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.48.116 (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There is some merit to keeping the counter arguments alongside the arguments so long as they don't hurt the understanding by adding too much information. If there is bias in either direction please quantify it. If you argue that there is too much bias. Give examples and count counter arguments. Triacylglyceride does have a point that "Every single" seems to be an exaggeration but nonetheless there may be a large amount of bias. I am not worried about "semantics" but rather statistics because facts win.

Ice fly editor (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The way an article is structured influences its point of view. The fact that each counter argument is made alongside the argument itself in this article, and not in Feminism, is almost definitely bias. I'm not even sure that there's more than a small mention of criticism against feminism in the feminism article. Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral POV; this has got to be fixed. rdococ... (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Response by user Ice fly editor is rather poor. Just because Ice fly editor is a feminist, does not mean that wikipedia needs to feed radical feminist propaganda about men. Facts win and facts are on men's side. Feminism is not about equality, it's about men bashing as is evident in this article. This article is politically correct pro-women radical feminist propaganda. And why are you quoting feminist scholars to downplay men's issues in this article? Feminist scholars are biased. They are not reliable sources. It's like quoting Nazis on the subject of the Holocaust.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.48.116 (talk)

Really, poor? What about it was factually wrong? You think there is ample evidence then point to me where he provides evidence of counter arguments or give some yourself rather than bashing me? I am open for criticism. I quote no one but the author of the talk. And my views on the topic are irrelevant, just trying to remove bias in both directions from the article.

• I have just copy edited my way through the entire article, and I am not seeming any evidence of unfair bias in this article. A section on Feminist critique of the MRM is appropriate. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that it isn't restricted to its own section; Feminist critique of the MRM seems to show on every point the article touches upon. Especially considering the same treatment isn't shown of Feminism itself, this strikes me as extremely worrying. rdococ... (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't get it

How is a MRA blog not a valid source for the views of an MRA? I keep trying to include the fact that some MRAs are concerned with a specific thing, but it keeps getting removed because the source is bad. I am confused because the source is basically the horse's mouth. Wouldn't, iunno, an Al-Queda run blog be a valid source for the views of a rank and file member of Al-Quida? For an extreme example?75.168.152.43 (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The whole Made To Penetrate thing is hard to find sources on too. It's clearly written in the laws if you actually look at the definitions of rape: They typically are phrased as "Forcible penetration" etc etc. But I can't find any non blog sources that are directly calling that out, and apparently I can't just link some laws as proof because no synthases? I'm just very confused here. 02:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.152.43 (talk)

I'm sure we all accept that some men's rights advocates are concerned with this issue, but that's not the main threshold for inclusion used by Wikipedia. We do not cite blogs (al-Qaeda or otherwise) by themselves for several reasons, but the main one is that they are not reliable sources. Blogs are also not good for establishing due weight. The Wikipedia page explaining that is here: WP:SPS.

To be included in this article, additions should be supported by sources with two qualities:

• It must be reliable, meaning it has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking (published by an established outlet with editorial oversight)
• It must specifically mention the connection to the men's rights movement, or it must supplement a source which specifically mentions the men's rights movement in an obvious way.

If a reliable sources doesn't explain the connection between made-to-penetrate laws and men's rights, it probably doesn't belong here.

It's also worth noting that many Wikipedia editors, including me, are very skeptical of citing legal documents in articles by themselves. They have an extremely high likelihood of being misinterpreted, because most readers are not lawyers. It's almost always better to cite WP:SECONDARY sources to summarize these laws. Again, whether primary or otherwise, they should mention men's rights if they're included here.

I hope that answers your concerns. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A Call to Administrators to Be Fair

This claim is unnecessary and biased because you are referencing feminist scholars who are natural enemies of men's rights movement: ---> "Some scholars consider the men's rights movement or parts of the movement to be a backlash to feminism."

The following claims are biased and unnecessery since SPLC did not label MRM as hate organization. Why SPLC did not criticize toxic radical men-hating feminist movement? Because they are biased. Also, same claims could be made under Feminism wiki article, but are not allowed because feminists are offended and consider it biased. So, why not remove these outrageous claims: ---> "Claims and activities associated with the men's rights movement have been criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Centerand some commentators. Some sectors of the movement have been described as misogynistic. Others argue that perceived disadvantage is often due to loss of entitlement and privilege." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.172.44 (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL. Also, please step away from your rage-totem and try studying the feminism from a feminist perspective. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A Disgrace!

This article is a disgrace - it is really not a page from an encyclopedia at all - it reads like a misandrist smear compaign - no doubt fully endorsed by the matriarchy! The hand that rocks the cradle... I am startled that Wikipedia allows this page in its current form. There are many people who disagree with the feminist movement - including the likes of Erin Pizzey, founder of the first refuge for victims of domestic violence, who has said many negative things, but the Wikipedia article does not open with criticisms of feminism, as it does with the Men's Rights Movement. I really do feel concerned about the state of Wikipedia when I read articles like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.68.74 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"A misandrist smear compaign - no doubt fully endorsed by the matriarchy!" Can't tell if Poe's Law EvergreenFir (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Written by whom?

The biggest strength of Wikipedia - the fact that anybody can contribute - is also its biggest weakness. For example, the page on men's rights has clear indications of being written/edited by a feminist who holds anti-men's rights sentiments. The pervasive undertone of the entire article is that of off-handed dismissal.

As a matter of fact, I'm aware of a feminist online movement to submit edits to Wikipedia so that all political and biological pages that holds slightly-out-of-feminist-line idea can be brought to line. It's no surprise therefore that all the pages that may discuss ideas in contradiction to feminism - are mostly written in a tone of dismissiveness.

I don't know who reviews the articles after they're submitted. I don't know whether Wikipedia keeps track of the political biases of their staff - which they should.

If Wikipedia falls to a certain group that will be a great blow for open marketplace of ideas. Everybody will benefit if political pages are written and edited by people with no conflict of interest. Aro 2014 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have actual suggestions to improve the article based on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, or just unsourced conspiracy theories? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This sentence, " I don't know whether Wikipedia keeps track of the political biases of their staff - which they should." shows a deep misunderstanding of the wikipedia process and I don't think that anything can come out of it that would make this, or any other article better. Carptrash (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Major rape issue ignored

A major component about men's rights with regards to rape is that in many jurisdictions, being forced to penetrate is not counted as a form of rape. So a man who's forced to place his penis into a woman through drunknesness or coercion, or even just tied up and forced has not legally been raped. Yet I see no mention of this issue (which is important to men's rights activists) under this portal, nor any mention of it's importance to men's rights activists. 75.168.116.235 (talk)

This article recently had a section on that topic. But there were no citations stating that this was an issue for MRAs so I removed it. Do you have a reliable source linking this issue to men's rights activism? If so, we can include this topic again. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

What would count as proof that it's a men's right's issue?75.168.116.235 (talk)

Here. Would this count? https://newrepublic.com/article/116768/latest-target-mens-rights-movement-definition-rape 75.168.116.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, hey, I found a Time magazine article that, in the most negative way possible, mentions the MRA concern with Male Rape. That should do. http://time.com/134152/the-toxic-appeal-of-the-mens-rights-movement/ 75.168.116.235 (talk)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/pshe_and_citizenship/pdf/rape.pdf << Here's proof that it's an issue, first and to start with 75.168.116.235 (talk) http://theconversation.com/men-forced-to-have-sex-with-women-arent-being-properly-recognised-by-the-law-legal-expert-81638 75.168.116.235 (talk)

You need a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source that says that the Men's rights movement is concerned about laws that define rape as penetration-only. You can't just take one source that says "MRAs are concerned about..." and another source that says "some laws only classify penetration as rape," and combine the two to come up with a new statement -- see WP:SYNTH. Even "some men are concerned about laws that only classify penetration as rape," cannot be combined with "MRAs are concerned about..." you need a source that explicitly states that MRAs are concerned about laws that define rape as penetration-only. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have one source that proves that some laws state that, and another source that proves that MRA's are worried about it. I'm not doing any synthasis, but last time I tried to write something I was told I had to support both statements, so that's what I'm doing. 75.168.116.235 (talk)

(after two edit conflics) :::A reliable reference stating that it is a men's rights issue. It is not enough that some men sit around and grumble or post on the internet about the unfairness of it all. A major court case about it would be a start. Carptrash (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

So... BBC and time magazine? 75.168.116.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment

added 15:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither source supports the material you're trying to add. You cannot combine multiple source to arrive at a statement that none of them individually support. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No, even a major court case wouldn't be enough. There needs to be a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source that shows that specifically the MRM or MRAs consider this a major issue.

Also, the source needs to be independent. MRA sources would be primary sources that need a secondary or tertiary source to establish that this is a noteworthy aspect of the MRM, and not just something that only a few of them have picked up to pat themselves on the back. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, for what little it's worth, here's a court case, though obviously it does not specifically mention MRA https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-law-in-context/article/oh-youre-a-guy-how-could-you-be-raped-by-a-woman-that-makes-no-sense-towards-a-case-for-legally-recognising-and-labelling-forcedtopenetrate-cases-as-rape/8166CABA33BBE64EBBAD384E1FE13551/core-reader 75.168.116.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If it doesn't mention the Men's rights movement or Men's rights activists, then it's not worth mentioning at all. This is not a forum nor a soapbox to discuss MRA views on topics that don't mention them. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

How does BBC not count? I see it as the source for a lot of things. Same for Time Magazine. 75.168.116.235 (talk)

The BBC piece does not mention the Men's rights movement. The Time piece doesn't specifically mention the laws that define rape in terms of penetration. Did you even read the sources, or are you just not reading my responses? What part of "you cannot combine sources to arrive at claims that neither individually supports" do you not understand? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine, so how about "Time magazine recognizes that the MRA movement cares about rape of men" and I leave it at that. Because I really feel that this page isn't even touching upon topics that are important to MRAs.75.168.116.235 (talk)

Because that's dishonestly misrepresenting what Time magazine says, per the very quote you cited, ("These groups spew logically faulty statistics about the prevalence of male rape"). "Time Magazine recognizes that the Men's rights movement lies about the rape of men" would be closer to what you cited. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Unrelated Issues

The sentence "Men's rights advocates have been critics of legal, policy and practical protections for abused women,[132][135][136] campaigning for domestic violence shelters for battered men[128][129] and for the legal system to be educated about women's violence against men.[128]" seems to expressly state that campaigns for domestic violence shelters for battered men and education about women's violence against men are examples of criticizing protections for abused women, which is not at all demonstrated and seems like a non sequitur. Seems like an attempt to cast the latter two activities in a negative light by grouping them under the overall subject of criticizing protections for women. DarkLanius (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Those are clearly separate clauses, I disagree that is how the sentence reads. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Leniency in partner homicide dispute.

The source saying that men get more lenient sentences in partner homicide cases: "Gavin, Helen (2014) Jealous Men but Evil Women: The Double Standard in Cases of Domestic Homicide. In: 6th Global Conference – Evil, Woman and the Feminine, 2nd4th May 2014, Lisobon, Portugal." cites "Gendered Justice: Domestic Homicide and the Death Penalty Article in Feminist Criminology · April 2009 DOI: 10.1177/1557085108327657." to prove it in footnote 15. The problem is that "Gendered Justice" doesn't actually say what the footnote says that it says, unless I read it completely wrong. They found that women get the death penalty for killing their partners at the same rate that men do. What it found was that women are more likely to get the death penalty when they use knives and guns. I just figured that if the overall death penalty rate is the same for men and for women, but women get harsher sentences when they use a knife or a gun, then that must necessarily imply that the harsh sentences with guns and knives are balanced out by more lenient sentences elsewhere. That is why I keep saying that it failed verification. To my mind, more lenient sentences would imply less executions for men overall. Which is not the case. Sewblon 08:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs)

Having looked over both the source, and the source's source, I simply do not agree with your summary at all, but perhaps someone who's familiar with the data could elaborate. These sources go to great lengths to explain that that society's treatment of gender influences sentencing in complex ways. In other words, it's not that simple. The source doesn't say that it's more lenient elsewhere, it says (simplistically) that women who commit crimes typically thought of as "unladylike" are punished more severely than men who commit similar crimes. Violent crimes are seen as "unladylike", and discussions of how society punished women for deviating from traditional gender roles is comfortably in the domain of feminism.

There are definitely issues with WP:SYNTH here, but we shouldn't misrepresent a complex issue as being straightforward, or misrepresent one group's conclusion as the academic mainstream. We have a set of sources contextualizing it and disputing it.

This article should not be a catalog of every example of a gender discrepancy which doesn't favor men, it should be supported by sources discussing men's rights. In this case, the source is a response to such an example, so it seems like it's still useful, but it's not ideal. There's a recurring problem with this topic. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"it says (simplistically) that women who commit crimes typically thought of as "unladylike" are punished more severely than men who commit similar crimes. Violent crimes are seen as "unladylike", and discussions of how society punished women for deviating from traditional gender roles is comfortably in the domain of feminism." I do not dispute that. I speak only of the claim that women who kill their male partners get harsher sentences than men who kill their female partners. Looking at statistics that show that women are more likely to get the death penalty when they use a gun or a knife, but equally likely overall to get sentenced to death, and then concluding that the courts are more lenient with wife killers than husband killers, is not a fair reading of the data. Sewblon 21:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs)

Where, exactly, does it say that they are equally likely overall? I'm looking over these sources and I do not see this. Attempting to interpret a source's source is asking for trouble. We generally don't second-guess a source like this. The source which is actually cited in the article doesn't mention weapons as a factor, and the other source mentions that women are (unsurprisingly) much less likely to kill using bare hands or ad-hoc weapons, but it contextualizes this as part of the concept of "crimes of passion".

We trust the reliable source to interpret studies much more than we accept editors too. We use cited sources more-or-less on their own, because most academic sources cite dozens of sources, which cite dozens of sources, etc. As a tertiary source, we have to draw the line pretty quickly. If you think this was an error, by all means spell it out, but please be more specific.

Regardless, as I said, both sources very heavily emphasize that there are very significant differences in the type and quantity of crimes committed by women compared to men, and direct 1:1 comparison is fraught with difficulty. As one example, the rate at which prosecutors seek the death penalty is tied to a variety of complicated factors, including gender. A direct comparison was not the intention of either source, and when sources specifically tell us not to make a simple comparison, we should probably listen. The conclusions drawn by both sources is that there is a discrepancy which, (for violent crimes) doesn't treat women more leniently.

What am I missing? Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"Where, exactly, does it say that they are equally likely overall?" Gendered Justice: page 178. "Without taking into account details of the context of the homicide, there are no significant differences in the number of

men and women charged with a capital offense or sentenced to death." Sewblon 22:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs)

Ah, okay. First of all, this source is not currently cited in the article, which is a big problem with trying to undermine it in this way, as already explained. Second, this is only "where the prosecutor sought this sentence". We're talking about some extremely small numbers, here, also, and this dramatically changes any conclusions that could be made (more than half of women in this study killed exactly two people, but all of the men killed three or more. This is the kind of thing that would determine whether or not the death penalty was sought, right?) Third, the entire point of the study was "context", which is explained in the following pages. Selecting a single line out of context from a source's cited source to cast doubt on the point is cherry-picking. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"Second, this is only "where the prosecutor sought this sentence"." Where does it say that? "Selecting a single line out of context from a source's cited source to cast doubt on the point is cherry-picking."

But what context did I omit? Sewblon (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It says that earlier in the same paragraph, but since this has been removed, this no longer seems like it's worth going into. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the Men's Rights Movement? Neither source mentions the MRM at all, and it would be WP:SYNTH to tie it to them. These sources sound like they would be more appropriate for the Sex differences in crime or Capital punishment in the United States articles. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@PearlSt82. I agree. the content in dispute is removed.Sewblon (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If applied evenly, this approach is going to make the entire article a lot shorter. I can live with that, however. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Right now the article is pretty coatracky with the issues section taking up a separate header for each issue. This should probably be condensed into paragraph form, only detailing what RS say the MRM's positions are. The article really shouldn't be going off into the weeds on making the case for or against the MRM's arguments, but instead should link off to appropriate articles like Gender differences in suicide or whatever for that level of detail. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

/*Not Alt-Right*/

The Men's Rights Movement is concerned with the wellbeing of men(as covered in the issues section), and does not belong in [[Category:Alt-right]] category, for the same reason Islam does not belong in [[Category:Terrorism]] (which is to say some radical adherents does not make an entire movement radical). Some unsavoury editors seem to be trying to paint the whole movement as WP:RACIST, this commentary belongs in the criticism section, if you have a citation that backs it up- and nowhere else in the article body. Ethanpet113 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, thanks for picking that up. Please note in line with WP:TPO, I have fixed the format error in your comment above to include WP:NOWIKI tags so your text reads correctly when referencing the two categories. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 19:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Education and WP:Synth

the source "Voyer, Daniel; Voyer, Susan D. (2014). "Gender Differences in Scholastic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 140 (4): 1194." doesn't mention the MRM at all. it seems like WP:Synth to have it here. Sewblon (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

More generally, I am unclear on whether it is acceptable to cite a source that mentions an MRM claim or issue, but not the movement itself. Sewblon (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed it for several reasons. I agree that it's SYNTH, and the WP:EGG link to Christina Hoff Sommers was non-neutral and borderline WP:OR. I have also added a link to a relevant article where more information could be found (or should be found at least, since that article also needs some work).

This isn't setting a precedent, though. As I've said before, we need to guard against inadvertently legitimizing pseudoscience or other forms of sloppy scholarship. As an encyclopedia, we should challenge misinformation when we can, and using a tangential source to do this is acceptable. Gender differences in education are extremely-well studied globally, and have been studied for decades. Some MRM concerns and talking points are valid and important, some are controversial and worth debate, and some are flatly wrong. We can, and should, challenge these when necessary, or at least not give them undue attention.

Dedicated MRM sources are, from what I've seen, not likely to be reliable. This isn't a rule, just the trend I've observed. So, if the only source supporting a concern is an MRM source, that's an indicator that it might not belong here at all. Wikipedia strongly favors third party sources. However, the "men's rights movement" is loosely defined, and "movements" rarely have the kind of formal membership criteria that would be applicable here, so figuring out what is and is not part of the "movement" is subjective. Context and consensus are both important, but I would say that reliability is the most important consideration, not a source's ideology. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Separation of Criticism

I think in order to avoid controversy over bias the presentation of the movement's policies and the criticism thereof should be separated into different sections as is the case, for instance, in the article about Radical Feminism and many other political movements both within and outside the context of gender issues. DarkLanius (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

There already is a criticism section. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see wp:criticism and wp:neutral point of view (NPOV) regarding criticism. They should be combined where possible. Jim1138 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

According to wp:criticism "For topics about a particular point of view – such as...political outlooks...it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. ( 75.172.106.55 (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC) )

I didn't knew anything about this movement before reading this artcle and can say there is a heavy negative bias in it, so I completely agree that the critisism should be separated.--190.18.10.90 (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think removing the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs from the lead would solve the problem. As the article is written there is a heavy negative bias. Those issues in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph are already covered in the criticism section. (Halnoth (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018

REMOVE "Many scholars consider the men's rights movement a backlash[1] or countermovement[57] to feminism." there are no proof/cites to support this statement. Yoleo (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

There are 10 sources attached to this sentence. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the sources are to be at the end of the statement and since there are none there at the end of the sentence, there is thus no proof/cites. Can someone please point to the rules for this? Thanks :Yoleo (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC) )

•  Not done. Scroll down to the references and look at note [1] (the one after "backlash"). It's not just one source - it's nine. Together with note [57] that's ten cites. They also don't need to be at the end of the sentence - they usually are, but it this case they've been split in two to make it clear which ones source "backlash" and "countermovement" respectively - this isn't an unusual construction. From WP:CITE - "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence". Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

OK that makes sense, I'll look at the cites. Thanks:) Yoleo (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018

Change "The men's rights movement is notably anti-feminist and made up of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on numerous social issues (including family law, parenting, reproduction, domestic violence against men and opposition to circumcision) and government services (including education, compulsory military service, social safety nets, and health policies), which men's rights advocates say discriminate against men."

by removing the words, "notably anti-feminist and" as there is no proof/cite for this and that it's erroneous since the MRMs are made up am many different groups and many of them are profeminist as per "Messner, Michael A. (June 1998). "The limits of "The Male Sex Role": an analysis of the men's liberation and men's rights movements' discourse". Gender & Society. Sage. 12 (3): 255&ndash, 276. doi:10.1177/0891243298012003002. JSTOR 190285. Pdf." Yoleo (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There are many sources already in the article which strongly support this. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Greyfell, With all due respect, I do not find any as you claim and in addition, I have included a support cite that the opposite is true, you do not address any of this. Your broad generalization is not a cite. Again request that the change is made as per my request above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoleo (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Article isn't protected, so you can make the change yourself. However, unless you can gather some support for your change, I suspect that any attempt to do so would be reverted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI post regarding recent IP edits

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rangeblock_request_for_edit_warring_and_likely_sockpuppetry EvergreenFir (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Volume of lead

Hi,
Idk if there are rules for how to write a lead, but AFAIK it is about summarizing the article. This article is fairly long, yet the lede is relatively short, and I, for one, think it is strange that about half of the lead is used to sum up criticism, which is not really half the article. There's also material in the lead which is not even in the article, like Rose Hackman's Guardian article (reference 7); to top of that, the material quoted - "indirectly caused by discrimination against women" - isn't even in Hackman's article. At first glance, it just seems like sloppy Wikiwork. I'd suggest a sort of round-table effort to improve the lead. T 88.89.217.49 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's the "rule": WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It's great that you've cited the rule, but that doesn't at all address the original comment, which was that the lede does not do a good job of summarizing the article, and is inordinately weighted toward criticism. On a related note, why is it that the SPLC is so heavily cited on these issues generally, here and in other related Wikipedia articles? They are not some sort of unbiased, godlike arbiter of who is good and who is bad, yet each of these articles seems to be festooned with their opinion on the matter. 98.117.32.116 (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Gender Studies Sources are suspect due to bias

Hello, I think the Gender Studies citations on the Men's Rights movement may be biased. The subject itself teaches that men cannot be discriminated against because they are "an oppressor group". Any sources from that study course should themselves be fact-checked ruthlessly. HadashiBlacksky (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2018

Hi. I would like to change the line:

Scholars have described the men's rights movement or parts of the movement as a backlash against feminism."

To:

Feminist scholars have described the men's rights movement, or parts of the movement, as a backlash against feminism. However, Men's Human Rights Activists see their antipathy as justified in light of several instances of feminists directly attacking both men and male equality. Male issues seen to be under attack by feminists are varied, but a key example is the Duluth Model of domestic violence - which sees men as default abusers and women as default victims. Other issues such as education are often brought up. They also note that feminists have a tendency to group-blame all men, which has been confirmed by some feminists.

Further down, I would also like to point out that the Criticism section needs some evening out. For example:

Domestic abuse expert Lundy Bancroft has called men's rights "the abuser's crusade" and said that the attitudes of the movement contribute to abuse of women.

Needs the cravat:

However she offers no evidence to support this accusation, and past campaigns by the MRM have simply asked for men's shelters to be opened and supported as well. The Men's Rights movement contains a large number of male abuse victims, and a part of the movement involves sharing those stories online and supporting each other.

Overall, it bothers me that more than half of the text of the introductory paragraph is criticism and a lot of the page reads like a rant about the movement. It does not seem like neutral sources are being used. In fact, it seems like the majority of sources are outright critics of the movement making accusations I'd find hard to cite. For example:

""Other studies have pointed towards men's rights groups in India trying to change or completely abolish important legal protections for women as a form of patriarchal anxiety as well as being hostile towards women"

Needs a note to the effect that MRAs in India are campaigning for equal laws (removed by feminists) to be reinstated. also:

"men's rights groups have attempted to achieve their goals by actively opposing and attempting to dismantle services and supports put in place to protect abused women and children."

Is absolute slander. There is no way to corroborate this, especially since Men's Rights activists themselves regularly state that they just want abuse shelters for men. In actual fact, the "services and supports" they mention likely include mandatory arresting of men in domestic violence callouts - regardless of who the claimed victim is (as per the Duluth Model).

I hope this helps

HadashiBlacksky (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC) HadashiBlacksky (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done This would require consensus to go against WP:UNDUE. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

How come? The only sources cited on the Men's Rights Movement page seem to be from opponents of the movement, so it seems like WP:UNDUE is kinda in tatters here. The Criticism part would confuse anyone from the actual movement. This is rather like allowing people who really hate a political party to write that party's page. HadashiBlacksky (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither of these sources directly discuss the Men's Rights Movement, the subject of this article. This is not a space to debate the merits of feminism. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of page, don't think it's up to fairness standards

If you take a look at the equivalent page for women's rights you have no criticism, etc even though it fair to say the same criticisms apply, i.e. "The women's rights movement has been criticized for exhibiting misandrist tendencies". This entire page feels like it was written by misandrists TBH. Page should get the same treatment as women's right page including headers and sections or the criticism section should be removed. Peter.thoenen (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. A neutral encyclopedia will reflect a topic as described by sources, not based on how sources describe a different topic. Sources describe women's rights differently because it's a different topic with a different history. Assuming that they must be similar because the names are similar is simplistic. If you would like to propose changes to the article based on reliable sources, by all means, go ahead. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

In particular, the section Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. Wikipedia doesn't create artificial balance between "both sides," especially when one side is largely dismissed by mainstream academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

When did "mainstream academia" become the decisionmaker on contentious political issues?98.117.32.116 (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. The "when" is not important, what matters is the "why". PearlSt82 (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"When did X become king" is an idiomatic expression which implies "why". The earlier commenter implies that the dismissal of what is a largely left-wing academia disqualifies one side of this topic from being heard. I question whether that is sufficient reason to hold that attitude. Also, unless I am misunderstanding their stance, part of what MRAs are complaining about is precisely that their concerns are dismissed. 98.117.32.116 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a women's rights page you need to take it up there. I find it ironic to read, "This entire page feels like it was written by misandrists TBH. (This) Page should get the same treatment as women's right page" So you don't like that page and want to do the same thing here. Very interesting. Carptrash (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, read WP:RS. You need reliable sources. Period. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, the page requires reliable sources and guidance from the 5 Pillars. It fails miserably on both counts, to suggest otherwise boggles the mind. Sadly, trying to argue reasonably is a waste of time.

This page does not even remotely refelct a neuteral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

142.13.25.76 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Fairness, bias and smearing by activists known to manipulate narratives on issues that relate to men, from new evidence

Rather than responding to all the other comments discussing similar clearly evident issues, I moved this to a new section, as it's large, and calls into question the narrative used to frame the whole article

WP:TLDR

As we can all see, the activism, laundered as research on Grievance studies courses still dominates Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become the bible to this new religion [[1]], where, in these subjects, "peer reviewed" bona-fide scientific activism, rules these subjects. Here, Wikipedia will simply document the trading on the good name of rationality and fairness that e.g. created good pages about Intelligent Design, or Homosexuality, or Evolution, yet treats corrupt scientific activism as "factual subject defining peer reviewed research" despite it being as flawed as actual ID on subjects like this, where it has a massive, documented conflict of interest, is vehemently against the truth being known, proven on numerous occasions ([2] - just one example now recognised universally as more correct than feminist dogma, if not universally correct in the majority of liberal western countries, despite the radical feminist protestation and back-peddling in recent years), corrupting these pages which are heresy to "Grievance Studies". It has become a deeply possessive, partisan and tribal movement that targets unfashionable/original-sin minority group's at universities [[3]] [[4]] issues, like men's and boy's, because it suits the increasingly radical agenda of the people jealously guarding the keys to the printing presses of "gender knowledge" in universities. Partly to pretend none of this could possibly be warranted entry into this realm of "peer reviewed gender activism", and crucially to make sure no inconvenient facts are allowed to have any risk of "taking up" funding, fought tooth and nail for, that should "by rights be women's", and condemn "blasphemy" that might wrestle control of a gender narrative they feel threatened when they don't control - despite it not actually concerning them, their funding, or their careers, yet they are fearful it does. It's exactly this kind of activism, that corrupts this page, evidently treated as heretical to this new dogmatic movement, that leads unfortunately to a Shapiro/Milo/Trump, and fortunately (and more accurately) a Jordan Peterson/Steven Pinker/Heather Heying/Brett Weinstein/IDW shaped whole in society, which cannot in fact be hidden, and is a need being evidently met elsewhere - not here, or in universities, because of vehement tribal opposition. Even Richard Dawkins, a key person to lay the intellectual groundwork to create a good page on e.g. Intelligent Design, compared exactly this kind of tribal, dogmatic anti-rationalism, to Animal Farm [[5]]. Welcome to the centre of it's bias, censorship, and curation on Wikipdeia, it's bible. Have a look around. If the information is strictly curated by radical neo-marxist/intersectional feminism, remember, it's to valiantly protect the page from showing "misogynistic facts about men". Which of course makes total sense. Remember chaps, "We can't give equal validity - that's false balance - we go on what our sources manage to launder as knowledge say, when protecting their future careers in the multi billion dollar, scientifically corrupt radical feminist activist establishment - or gets them higher up the corrupt academic grievance study course hierarchy - who 'peer review' our scientific activism in to unquestionable knowledge". No hint of corruption, or conflict of interest here.. that's what they say, and when you literally know why they are motivated to be corrupt, see it happening, and see the evidence for the effect this has on the lives of people (men and women) affected, just move along. The once good name of feminism is being traded on by radicals, with a clock ticking, who's time is expiring by the day, the more society wakes up to their tolerance of misandry, evidence of their corruption, and detest of men's issues is uncovered, their blatant double standards, the more men's lives get bleaker, from homelessness, suicide, addiction, healthcare, education, penal/legal system with a legitimate rape culture, facing the majority of public sphere violence, unrecognised domestic abuse, family/life choices (only treated as a banks despite getting the worst education at every stage, by results, and representation of both students and teachers - even in STEMM, plus dating off limits if you don't have a career). All while the only gender activists sanctioned to exist in universities, and given free reign of Wikipedia as a result, stamp out any and all valid recognition of men's concerns, and more men in fact do get radicalised, to the bitter glee of radical feminist activists, with more "incels/MGTOWS/redpillers" to write more infrequently read - and more hysterical - activist journalism about, because legitimate outlets of men's concerns are shunned. Radical feminist activism that trades on the good name of the civil rights movement, while being against it's actual values, that is at it's core now only snake oil to a public getting sicker as a result, for men and women, and the [empathy-gap] widens. But hey, at least we can put a finger on the exact game they're playing, and see it documented on Wikipedia. Due to the conflict of interest, stated even by them, nothing they say on men's issues should be given much at all of the "due weight" they claim in all of "the literature" they guard entry to, exposed in the eyes of rational, fair minded people as fraudulent on certain topics like this. Especially on this article which has a clear conflict of interest to this powerful activist lobby, that has been compared to Animal Farm, called fraudulent by Johnathan Heidt, and is becoming universally recognised as corrupt by an every growing, maligned but usually silent majority because of the "isms" and "phobic" tags that are routinely thrown their way. And to think, Feminism once had a good name, I personally know numerous feminists (still for women's issues) that are totally appalled at the tribal, dogmatic, unsympathetic, self-serving activists that hijacked the term today - even if this lobby happens to still manage to do some good on occasion for women. Why this lobby is referenced primarily here, and allowed to hijack almost the entire narrative with this blatant conflict of interest, I have no idea. Keep up the good fight though! As long as you can keep punishing men for women choosing to have children, and only focusing on the top 10 % of earners that still contains mostly men because they are more career dedicated to look after current and potential future families, are more eccentric and take more risks and have less kids, we won't notice the men that lose out because they're more eccentric, and taking more risks, and falling behind in every other way of life that makes women seem looked after from cradle to grave in comparison. Yes women's issues exist, and there will always be a need for actual feminism, despite what the current powerful radical feminist lobby thinks will happen if we dare to recognise men's issues on their own merit. In the light of all aforementioned issues (especially all men's valid issues treated as heresy by a powerful, dogmatic, fraud tolerant modern gender activist lobby), curating all men's issues on Wikipedia to stop "misogynist facts about men" becoming recognised, is just further taking part in the corruption of academia and society, that everyone in the world of "serious scientific scholarship uncontaminated by pretentious charlatans" [Dawkins words - and apply here] recognises. Same with many similar pages, due to equally invalid aspersions from a lobby that treats criticism like water off a duck's back, when the MRM in contrast has the weight of the world's tech companies and media ready to report and exaggerate even minor transgressions. Any set of ideas immune to criticism can become corrupt, and all need valid criticism. The double standard of Wikipedia on these issues just extends that bias, and corrects nothing. No, a "criticism" section on feminist pages is not the same as curating entire articles and framing them entirely from the (self confessed) 'opposing' viewpoint, overwhelmingly, on every article of certain types (for concerns not represented in universities for aforementioned reasons), because they are the only ones sanctioned to pretend to undergo a form of "peer review" - something only radical, dogmatic (anti-reason, corrupt, scientifically flawed) groups with a self confessed conflict of interest do, when attempting to smear the (smeared as) "dangerous" other side. Again, men and women critical of radical feminist anti-male dogma don't actually care very much, we go elsewhere for unbiased facts, but it would look less hypocritical the sooner you revert to a fact based, rational Wikipedia, and not one driven by scientific activism. The good name of feminism might actually be rescued the sooner these concerns are actually addressed, some places already do. But practices like this just don't wash anymore, and almost everyone knows it (Edit:) outside the echo chamber.

86.155.179.226 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You've confused length with quality. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You've confused quality with conciseness. I didn't claim it was concise, only lengthy. If it were more concise, which I agree it could be, it would be quality, now that you mention it. But it is lengthy, in a few parts more verbose than needed, but has merit in it's totality. Again, I don't suppose this will go anywhere, each and every concern will find a way to being water off a duck's back, no doubt.86.155.179.226 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Have a section for criticism, OR put criticisms in the main article

Having both is biased. 82.17.164.224 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

What? See WP:CSECTION. What, exactly, are you suggesting? Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

82.17.164.224 is arguing that the entire article, including the introduction, reads as a criticism of men's rights as a whole, and not much else. Which is against the policies listed right there on WP:CSECTION. 24.187.209.35 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The entire article, including the introduction, is a reflection of what reliable sources has written on the subject. So start a "Criticism" section and fill it with well sourced material. Carptrash (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

There already is a well-sourced criticism section. He/She is saying it's redundant/unnecessary based on the tone of the article as a whole. Not necessarily agreeing with him, just elaborating on the point I assume he's trying to make. 24.187.209.35 (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality re: Section on suicide

Alright. I have issues with this article regarding neutrality, like many people who have come here. It seems to read like a hit piece rather than an objective look at what "men's rights" mean. For the record, I abhor most "men's rights movements" on the basis of motivation. However, I do find there are some legitimate concerns (however misguided they may be) that have been brought up by the movement.

In order to have a productive discussion, instead of smearing the entire article, I'm just going to ask one question about one section: Why does the Men's rights movement#Suicide read the way it does? It seems laser-focused at dismissing any legitimate argument that men might have for why they commit suicide more often. Nothing is mentioned about men (especially disadvantaged men) having more difficult access to support groups, which is often cited as a significant reason for why their suicide rate is higher.

I have other issues but this seems like one that should be easy to suss out. Does anyone have an explanation for why it only seems to be interested in displaying one side of the argument? 24.187.209.35 (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You use the phrase "which is often cited", so drag those citations out and include them in the section. This should not be a problem. Carptrash (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I will if no one else does, and if the discussion here deems it appropriate. I'm not at all an expert in how to properly vet sources, which is why I wanted to open this for discussion before changing the article in a way that might not be appropriate. Just trying to go through the right channels. 24.187.209.35 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that part of the problem is a poor summarization of the overall article about gender differences in suicide. A better summary of the greater Wikipedia article would help to solve the bias in this section. This Slate Article mentions the socializing of men to not reach out for help as a factor, although more articles about the topic (such as this one from the guardian) reference the different methods as the primary reason for the gender difference in completed suicides. However, the guardian article is a much shorter review of the reason for the difference specifically, rather than a more in-depth gender-based analysis of suicide (such as those that exist within the new APA guidelines, breifly summarized here) CLPond (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)CLPond

This seems more appropriate for the Gender differences in suicide article. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move (Masculism)

Hi all, your considered input would be appreciated here:

Talk:Masculism#Requested_move_13_May_2019

One proposal is to move the Masculism article to Masculinism and template:Masculism sidebar to template:Masculinism sidebar

An additional/counter proposal is to move template:Masculism sidebar to template:Boys and men sidebar and template:Masculinism to template:Boys and men

WanderingWanda (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note: This notice originally presented the proposals incorrectly but this has now been corrected. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

moving comment from article

Comment by 2601:602:8080:B:2870:E001:540D:E5DC moved from intro section of article. Posting it here without expressing any opinion for or against its content.

The following few paragraphs do not actually constitute a summary of the article, but rather are an obvious smear of the topic being discussed. The article for feminism does not include a list of criticisms in its summary since criticisms properly belong in the criticisms section.

--Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason for this article and the feminism article to mirror each other. They're two very different topics. What we should look at is what reliable sources focus on when discussing the men's rights movement. WanderingWanda (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree, article consistency is something we see everywhere on Wikipedia, eg in country or city articles. No rerason why it should be different here, and in country or city articles of course we focus on reliable sources butt hat does not mean consistency goes out fo the window and I see no reason why ti should here either as the topics are part of a spectrum of gender activism. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This reads like a hit piece to direct people to, use Rationalwiki for that instead and let's keep this unbiased and fair.

I have to say, when reading over this and comparing it to the feminist article, I can't help but chuckle a bit. This page reads like it was created by the people who wrote the feminist article.

The Feminism page literally claims that feminists opposed Adolf Hitler before getting into one piece of criticism! The temerity! There's not a word about the transphobia, homophobia and misandry of different waves, not a word about SCUM or the misgivings of the Redstockings movement, the way feminists have actually denied male shelters funds, tried to keep rape a crime that can only be committed against them, killed dogs to spite people who have left the movement, Mary Koss and other disgraced feminists don't appear once... I think the Redstockings movement symbol is captioned "a symbol of feminsm based on the Venus symbol." Overall, it feels like while that article was written to include only the softest criticisms, while this is packed full of not just misinformation but outright lies at some points, as well as strange little statements like this: "Most men's rights activists in the United States are white, middle-class, heterosexual men." Is that supposed to be a criticism? It seems out of place where it is.

Some of the references are a bit strange, otherwise are just random blog posts which often have little-to-no relevance to any wider issues or are problematic, such as mentions of MRM "appropriating" references to sex roles from Feminism. Which... Isn't the case as I'm fairly sure that sex role theory came before feminist theory was properly established? "Some, if not all, men's rights issues stem from gender roles and, according to sociologist Allan Johnson, patriarchy." Don't state this as fact when you have one source cited here. Definitely don't use feminist theory like Patriarchy to seriously discuss a movement it would vehemently oppose! This is stated with absolute certainty, while any claims which remotely support the MRM point of view are "alleged" and "claimed."

Overall, this article is pretty pathetic and an absolute stain on whatever "neutral" credibility wikipedia is claiming to have here. I don't really have the will to carry on and point out all the mistakes in this. Suggestion would be to delete and start again, or at the least start some major reform on this page. ActuallyIncredulous (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you a sockpuppet? Is this your only account? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Point/Criticism/Concern/Digression/Disagreement? ActuallyIncredulous (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There are 229 references in this article. If you're going to suggest that many are "strange" or "random blog posts" then you're going to have to be far more precise with your criticisms. Which sources are dubious? Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC [2] is rapidly becoming less and less credible as time goes on and more court cases for libel roll in. It's listing of something as a hate crime is not worth much. (Not the mention the fact that the reference for this is to a blog post in which they talk about their listing of MRM movements, not the listing itself.) Political research associates [3] say "But the notion that “equality” requires an identical division of benefits ignores the differences between men’s and women’s roles in marriages, the reality of women’s greater responsibility for childcare, and their lesser economic strength compared to men." This is in reference to a DIVORCED couple with split 50/50 custody in which the father is having to pay the mother "hundreds in child support" per week. If that doesn't destroy their credibility then I don't know what does. Some mention of bias here would go far. Never mind the fact neither of these articles actually contain the words "hateful" OR "violent." Rose Hackman's arguments in the Guardian (an opinion article/anecdote) aren't even related to the MRM, [7] they're related to a few men she has had conversations with. This is a bit like pointing at a woman and saying "Feminists only feel like they have to do more than men because years ago she could have just been a housewife and she doesn't like working. "(Which is just as fallacious a point.) Seems like someone has done some digging to find that article and some mental gymnastics to link it to this. I have no idea why feminist theories and gender studies theorists who are going to be diametrically opposed to anything MRM or in fact any men's rights (often the same people) pop up so frequently in this article and seem to mostly dictate the content within it. Micheal Kimmel in particular makes up a solid proportion of the voices chiming in on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActuallyIncredulous (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The page on homelessness in the USA specifically states that homelessness affects men more than women. In the United States, about 60% of all homeless adults are men. A Wikipedia article called "Feminist criticisms of the MRM" would better fit the content of this page. Otherwise, follow WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL, Words to Watch and Bias In Sources. ActuallyIncredulous (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with one thing here - the PRA piece doesn't mention hate or violence (the SPLC one does, but note that it also says "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement".) I will remove that. The Guardian piece is something of an op-ed, but it's making the point that don't have to be MRA members to be concerned about the advanced of feminism (hardly a controversial point) and it's sourcing a sentence which isn't contentious anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to re-iterate this point in particular: Most homeless individuals are men (72% or 257,061 people). Most people experiencing homelessness are men. The sheltered population is composed of more women (45%) than the :::::::unsheltered population (29%). https://web.archive.org/web/20151201021903/https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2015-AHAR-Part-1.pdf

Then if anyone feels like making the article less of a joke, they could throw some stuff like this into the criminal justice or incarceration section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Lafave

Alternatively, people could make fun of people like this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/01/why-we-should-close-womens-prisons-and-treat-their-crimes-more-fairly

Or try to justify it to fit with the tone of the rest of the article. I have to say I'm extremely sceptical of those who wish to keep this article the way that it is.

I wonder what moral code they follow that justifies dismissing concerns about justifying barbaric and unequal laws as long as they only impact men, and wish to silence the voice of men who are trying to change things.

Here's a list of references which are used in regards to circumcision which are probably questionable: Meyers, Rupert (21 December 2015). "Men's Rights Activists are cave dwelling idiots". GQ. Ross, Julianne (10 June 2014). "The 8 Biggest Lies Men's Rights Activists Spread About Women". Ross, Julianne (10 June 2014). "The 8 Biggest Lies Men's Rights Activists Spread About Women".

Now. I've not read these, mostly because I'm pretty convinced at this point that the article is written by some ideologically driven loon, no offence to any ideologically driven loons out there, but I'm pretty sure you don't need to list these one after the other when referring to the systematic mutilation of infant boy's foreskins which takes place in some countries (the idea that trauma as an infant has no long-term impact was debunked years ago, fyi, perhaps worth mentioning, there is an in-depth and vast discipline that studies this sort of stuff. Read some psychology journals). I'll go as far as to say most of these references have practically no relevance whatsoever when it comes to meaningful debate and are thrown in purely to try and make it look like there's a lot of basis and thought behind these counter-arguments. This'll probably be my last comment here for a year or so, thanks! ActuallyIncredulous (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The article really looks biased to be honest. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased. Looked like a Rational Wiki article. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

including a paper abortion segment under the men's reproductive rights headline

I have been conducting some research about the theoretical process of paper abortion, or legal abortion, and I believe a contribution about this concept could be useful for this article. The section "men's reproductive rights" hints at this concept without explicitly defining or explaining what it is. Therefore, I feel that section could benefit from this contribution. I have included a link to my sandbox page so you can look over what I intend to include. Any thoughts are welcome! KayWine (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC) KayWine Sandbox

I would be strongly opposed to using the term "abortion" to refer to something that doesn't involve a pregnancy ending. I think that a neutral-language way of referring to what you mean is "elective termination of paternal rights and responsibilities." Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I noticed in some of the resources I found that they referred to this process as "elective abandonment". I can replace the term "paper abortion" with this other term. KayWine (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I have just reverted your edit. I think that many aspects of it were problematic. Let's take it line by line:

"Since the decision that followed Roe vs. Wade, which granted women the right to abortion, feminists have applauded the courts for instituting reproductive rights for women within the legal system"

I would argue that rights aren't granted or instituted, but recognized. It's also a POV selective statement. I'm a feminist, and I also applaud the US courts system for Griswold vs. Connecticut, which was not a female-oriented repro rights case.

"Men's rights advocates, however, felt that this court case was an inadequate attempt at extending equal rights to all people, regardless of sex."

You'll find that people, regardless of sex, have the right to pursue an abortion if they're pregnant. Do I need a citation?

"Advocates for men's rights introduced the theoretical concept of elective abandonment in response to what they believed was an unequal division of reproductive rights created by the outcome of Roe vs. Wade."

This is fair, but I think it needs a citation quite badly. Incidentally, I think the paper abortion article should be renamed elective abandonment. I should try to make that happen.

Due to its controversy among feminists, this subject hasn’t gained much presence in the justice system.

This is a statement without basis in fact. It hasn't gained presence in the justice system because it has no basis in existing law. It also hasn't gained much presence in any legislature, but do you really think that "controversy among feminists" is enough to keep something from becoming law? Also, what's "much presence"? Does it have any presence?

Currently, if the mother decides she wants to abort or keep their child

I think you mean "if the pregnant person decides they want to continue their pregnancy or have an abortion." Children aren't aborted, pregnancies are.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Children are aborted. Or do you consider murders where the child's spine is severed after their head passes out the birth canal to be 'just pregnancies'? All women have the right to make decisions over what happens to their body - including unborn women. You don't get to make the decision to kill a woman who is not born without it being murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.67.11 (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)